Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 822 1991 SLD 822 1991 SCMR 209
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.629 of 1988, decision dated: 2-04-1990 (Against the judgment, dated 23-10-1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Case No.65/1649 of 1982)
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, SAAD SAOOD, JAN AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Malik AZHARUL HAQ

DIRECTOR OF FOOD, PUNJAB and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art.212(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider effect of dismissal of civil servant from service after he was acquitted of criminal charge. (b) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975--R.9--O & M. Establishment Manual, Vol. I (revised), p.546--Civil servant dismissed from service on his conviction of criminal charge without resort to inquiry procedure under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---Civil servant's subsequent acquittal by giving him benefit of doubt---Effect of dismissal of civil servant after he was acquitted of criminal charge. Judgment of a Criminal Court is not necessarily decisive as regards departmental or disciplinary action. A prosecution may fail for technical reasons; sometimes the Court notes the facts as suspicious, but gives the accused the benefit of the doubt; and sometimes a prosecution fails for the patent reason that witnesses have been bought over. In all such cases it may well be held that the circumstances are so suspicious that the Government servant can no longer be safely trusted; or it maybe held that, though the official is acquitted on the main charge, facts brought to light in the course of the trial show defects of character or a disregard of proper procedure which would justify the taking of departmental action against the accused. But departmental action should not follow a prosecution which has failed for the sole reason that witnesses have been bought over unless the Court itself has noted that the witnesses have been influenced. Frequently, however, the above elements are absent, e.g., when art official is tried on a definite charge and is acquitted either in the original Court or on appeal and there is no question of the acquittal being merely on technical ground of evidence having been suppressed. In such cases, and when no facts are established in the course of the trial that would' justify action being taken for disregard of departmental rules, the decision of the Court on the facts should be accepted and no departmental action should be taken. Similarly when the charge is dismissed without any suggestion by the Court…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492